It's deeply fascinating to me that Russian gas is still flowing through Ukrainian pipelines to European markets. The fee Russia pays to Ukraine (their mortal enemy in an ongoing war!) must be very...
It's deeply fascinating to me that Russian gas is still flowing through Ukrainian pipelines to European markets. The fee Russia pays to Ukraine (their mortal enemy in an ongoing war!) must be very substantial for them not to blow up the pipeline on day 1 of the invasion. Now it looks like the flow will be reduced, but alternatively Ukraine may be able to negotiate a much higher fee (with their mortal enemy in an ongoing war!!) since the importance of this pipeline has increased for Russia.
I wonder if it's partly because that would make the situation harder for those western allies that depend on that gas. And there's probably something to be said about respecting agreements.
I wonder if it's partly because that would make the situation harder for those western allies that depend on that gas. And there's probably something to be said about respecting agreements.
The article says Slovakia has stopped military shipments and is obstructing Ukraine aid like Hungary, which simplifies the whole equation entirely: There are three parties here: Ukraine, Russia,...
The article says Slovakia has stopped military shipments and is obstructing Ukraine aid like Hungary, which simplifies the whole equation entirely:
There are three parties here: Ukraine, Russia, and the EU. The operation of the pipeline requires Russia to benefit (else they'll unilaterally stop shipments), and almost requires Ukraine to benefit too - the EU can twist Ukraine's arm using aid as leverage, so if the EU and Russia both benefit then Ukraine will enable flow even if it hurts them.
But only if they have aid to leverage. If Slovakia isn't providing aid, then Ukraine has leverage over Slovakia (in the form of controlling gas exports) that they want to either leverage for more aid, or simply switch off entirely to prevent Russia from benefiting.
The alternative explanation is that Ukraine and Russia both have exclusive control between them despite EU leverage, but somehow the pipeline is a positive-sum game despite trying to kill each other, and thus a willing/uncoerced choice for both of them. That's possible, although it makes no sense to me.
It’s widely suspected that Ukraine did blow up a pipeline, though not their own pipeline. Better to blow up a competing pipeline than their own source of income. (And as the article shows, if they...
It’s widely suspected that Ukraine did blow up a pipeline, though not their own pipeline. Better to blow up a competing pipeline than their own source of income. (And as the article shows, if they own it, they can just shut it down.)
It's deeply fascinating to me that Russian gas is still flowing through Ukrainian pipelines to European markets. The fee Russia pays to Ukraine (their mortal enemy in an ongoing war!) must be very substantial for them not to blow up the pipeline on day 1 of the invasion. Now it looks like the flow will be reduced, but alternatively Ukraine may be able to negotiate a much higher fee (with their mortal enemy in an ongoing war!!) since the importance of this pipeline has increased for Russia.
I wonder if it's partly because that would make the situation harder for those western allies that depend on that gas. And there's probably something to be said about respecting agreements.
The article says Slovakia has stopped military shipments and is obstructing Ukraine aid like Hungary, which simplifies the whole equation entirely:
There are three parties here: Ukraine, Russia, and the EU. The operation of the pipeline requires Russia to benefit (else they'll unilaterally stop shipments), and almost requires Ukraine to benefit too - the EU can twist Ukraine's arm using aid as leverage, so if the EU and Russia both benefit then Ukraine will enable flow even if it hurts them.
But only if they have aid to leverage. If Slovakia isn't providing aid, then Ukraine has leverage over Slovakia (in the form of controlling gas exports) that they want to either leverage for more aid, or simply switch off entirely to prevent Russia from benefiting.
The alternative explanation is that Ukraine and Russia both have exclusive control between them despite EU leverage, but somehow the pipeline is a positive-sum game despite trying to kill each other, and thus a willing/uncoerced choice for both of them. That's possible, although it makes no sense to me.
It’s widely suspected that Ukraine did blow up a pipeline, though not their own pipeline. Better to blow up a competing pipeline than their own source of income. (And as the article shows, if they own it, they can just shut it down.)